To fullback or not to fullback...

P

p_town_horn

1,000+ Posts
That is the question.

It seems to me that we may need to utilize the FB position this year more than we have previously. The shotgun with Colt and RB in the back field just doesn't seem to make too much sense with the team we have. Obiwan and Vondrell look more like slashing runners than guys who juke a lot so I would think power running with a fullback would be more our style. Also I know Colt is mobile but we don't exactly want him running a lot and taking a ton of hits. He is fast but he is a pocket passer.

So do we see more under center work and if so is there a FB in the formation? I think we are going to need the power game and it makes sense with out RB situation. We do not have a really shifty guy like Charles who takes his time finds a hole and then bursts through. These guys like to pound the **** out of the ball. So it makes more sense to get a pounding FB in front of them. Also, it makes sense because we are using a stable of backs, or at least I assume so. With multiple hard-running backs the strategy should be to wear out the D-line and LBs. So again it makes sense to pound away and wear the D down. That is best accomplished IMHO with the use of a FB and some *** beating RBs.
 
I think using a fullback some is fine, but is not essential to a power running game. There is no reason you can't run straight ahead out of a one back set, whether it be in the shotgun or under center. You're correct that McGee and Chris O. are downhill type runners; I believe Fozzy is more of a shifty type.

I would like to see us mix in a little fullback, but see no reason to abandon a 3 wr base offense. Going away from that to a fullback gives us either a less athletic look - Luke T. - or, with a guy like Cobb or Johnson, if we went that route, someone who is unproven as a blocker - more of a bigger running back, and not really addressing your call for more blocking. We really haven't recruited the position. I think we actually are better off to mix in more two-TE, one back to get more blocking.

The shotgun helps you see the field better in the passing game as well, obviously. I disagree with your contention that Colt is a pocket passer. Although counterintuitive, VY was much more of a pocket passer than Colt; he rarely threw on the run, mostly either sitting in the pocket till the last second OR running on his own. Colt, on the other hand, makes some of his best (and, to be fair, worst) throws on the run. I think the shotgun gives him a little more time back there to make things happen, and thats good. I look for Colt to have a bounce back year, and I think the strength of this offense will be the passing game.
 
If you have a talented FB it's a definite plus but too many people think you can just take a defensive lineman or LB and make him a FB just because of his size. Wrong.
 
The main question re fullback this year is who is going to replace Derek Lokey in goal line situations. He was a road grader who basically destroyed whatever was in his path. A regular size/strength fullback will produce a stalemate in those situations which isnt good enough. I would like to see Lamar Houston replace Lokey at goal line fullback. If Muschamp isnt willing to risk him, then I think we are going to have to open up the playbook in goal line situations.
 
I'd kinda like to see us use an H-back approach, with someone who can not only catch outlet passes, but is big enough to be a lead blocker when called on...not exactly a fullback, but with most of the same advantages.
 
Didn't Ricky Williams play fullback early on at UT?

Shon Mitchell and Priest Holmes were the halfbacks. The difference was the position was utilized as part of the offense.
 
I'm not saying you're right or wrong, but sometimes you can have a ton of playmakers and still get nowhere because your team can't block.
If we run a FB system and run it well, we'll still plenty of playmakers to get the ball to, and we're gonna smoke people. OTOH, whatever system we run, if we execute it well with the athletes we have, we're gonna kill people.

I'm not worried about losing a blocker or losing a playmaker depending on scheme. I want execution and cohesiveness within whatever scheme we play.

We get that and it's light out, boys.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top